Revolution's Troops Doing The Leading

January 13, 1996|RUSSELL BAKER The New York Times

It must delight Democrats to watch the Republicans play cutthroat in the budget quarrel. The man Republicans are out to get is, after all, their own leading contender for the presidential nomination, aka Sen. Bob Dole of Kansas.

Whether anybody will remember these January shenanigans next autumn is highly doubtful, the national memory span now being about two-and-a-half weeks. In the meantime, though, it can only hearten President Clinton to see the top Republican candidate so cavalierly abused by his own people.

It was Newt Gingrich's obstreperous freshmen who repudiated and embarrassed Dole the other day when, trying to play the statesman, he proposed to reopen closed federal offices while the budget talks proceeded. "Absolutely not," said the new crowd.

Thus the freshmen submit persuasive evidence against Dole's competence to be president. How can he possibly hope to lead the country when he can't even lead his own troops?

But, of course, they are not his own troops. He is a government man, trained by years of Washington experience in the art of making government work. The Gingrich people, by contrast, profess to loathe government, and most probably mean it.

Their dismissing Dole with an airy wave of the hand illustrates an indifference to compromise more characteristic of true believers than political winners.

They believe their demand for a balanced budget in seven years makes them champions of a principle too high to allow for compromise. Most things in American life, of course, are the result of compromise - even including the location of Washington, D.C., and the structure of the Congress itself.

Still, zealous devotion to principle is the American style this year. See the right-to-life and "militia" movements. The rule of governing used to be, "Half a loaf is better than none."No more. Now it is, "I want the whole loaf, and I want it now, or Katie bar the door."

The freshmen argue that the 1994 elections give them a "mandate" to insist the president surrender on the budget.

This shows a serious misunderstanding of how much power a president has even when the opposition runs the House and Senate. His veto power alone means that without a two-thirds majority in both houses, Congress cannot impose its will on presidents.

The choice is between compromise and paralysis.

There are polls showing the country blames the Republicans for the partial government shutdown. Since all presidents now live by the poll-of-the-day, Clinton may believe he is a clear winner on this issue and can profit by leaving the Gingrich Republicans twisting in the wind.

Maybe, but in politics things are never so simple. In fact, there has been very little public uproar about the government shutdown. Soreheads who call up radio shows to complain about whatever is eating them are not in high dudgeon about the shutdown.

Part of the explanation is that since most of the government has not been shut down, few people have felt much impact. It has been largely an inside-the-Beltway event.

Chances are excellent it will be completely out of voters' minds by the time the presidential campaign comes along. It would surely do nothing to save Clinton by then if his Bosnian expedition should turn out badly.

Its meaning for the Republican Party is more interesting. To win the nomination Dole needs the support of people so conservative they've become radicals. This week's evidence that he is, down deep, a compromiser can do him no good. Nor do the radicals have memories as short as the rest of us. As a group, they forget nothing and forgive very little.

The position of Gingrich is also entertaining. He began this Congress as the leader of what the press called a "revolution."Its assault force was composed of freshmen House members, who are said to have won office because his "Contract With America" fetched voters to an exciting new Republicanism.

The question now is whether Gingrich is leading his revolutionary troops or whether they are now leading him.

The French and Russian revolutions have conditioned us to think that all revolutions eat their children. It isn't so. (See George Washington & Co.) Still, Newt Gingrich seems more led than leader these days.

Write to columnist Russell Baker at The New York Times, 229 W. 43rd St., New York, N.Y. 10036.